To receive any declarations of
interest. Members are advised to consider the advice
contained within the Declaration of Interest advice attached to
this Agenda. If a Member declares an interest, they should
complete the Declaration of Interest
Form
To approve the Minutes of the
Constitutional Review Working Party meeting held on 11 November
2021, copy attached.
Minutes:
The Chair proposed, CouncillorRusiecki seconded and the Working Party
agreed that the minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2021
were a correct record.
Mr Hughes, Committee
Services Manager, introduced the item noting that currently there
was a requirement for full Council to meet in order to formally
declare a vacancy when a Member was disqualified from
office.
The Council did not
have any discretion on whether or not to declare a vacancy as it
was a requirement of the law, therefore it was suggested that this
function be delegated to the Chief Executive in order to make the
process more efficient both for the Council, and for the
disqualified individual.
During discussion of
the item it was noted that:
The Chief Executive would be expected to declare the
vacancy as soon as possible after a disqualification had been
established.
It was unusual that the existing system required
Members to vote to declare a vacancy when there was no alternative
option to be chosen, the only lawful course of action was to agree
to declare a vacancy.
Councillor Ashbee
proposed, Councillor Rusiecki seconded and the Working Party agreed
the recommendation within the report, namely:
‘That CRWP recommends to the Standards Committee that
Council amends its scheme of delegations by delegating to the Chief
Executive (and in her absence the Director of Democracy and Law)
the authority to declare vacancies in office under section 86 of
the Local Government Act 1972.’
Mr Hughes introduced
the report, noting that Officers had been asked to bring a report
to the Working Party to allow Members to review the rules governing
the Leader’s report.
During consideration
of the item it was noted that:
The Leader felt she would be able to offer a more
accurate and wide-ranging leaders report if the other group leaders
were required to submit their responses to the Report in advance of
the meeting. This would give her the opportunity to fully
research the answers to any questions raised, rather than relying
upon her memory in the spur of the moment, which could be less
accurate.
The Leader suggested that another alternative could
be that the Report did not need to be shared in advance of the
meeting. She felt that this alternative would make the
situation fairer, and was how the Report had been presented in the
past.
There was democratic value in the Leader not
receiving the questions in advance, as it held the Leader to
account.
Scripted answers were less engaging for the
public.
Officers could not be called upon to assist Members
in answering questions at full Council meetings; it was a debating
chamber reserved for Councillors.
If a newsworthy event occurred following the
submission of the Report, the Leader could contact the Chair and
ask for permission to include it in the Report.
It was proposed by
Councillor Rusiecki, seconded by the
Chair and agreed that the recommendation in the report be approved,
namely:
‘That CRWP recommends to
the Standards Committee that Council make the amendments to Council
Procedure Rule 2.4 regarding the Leader’s Report as outlined
in Annex 1 to the report.’
Ms Culligan, Director of Law and Democracy, introduced
the report to consider a revision of the rules for Member questions
to Council. It was noted that this only related to questions
from Members, in relation to procedure rules 14.6 and 14.8.
There were no specific recommendations in the report, instead, this
was an opportunity for the Working Party to look at the process and
make any recommendations that it felt would be
appropriate.
During consideration
of the item it was noted that:
While it was understood that Council should work at
a high strategic level, sometimes Members asked straightforward
operational matter questions because they could receive a quicker
response than by going to a Service
Director.
A Members Portal was being designed to help Members
log and monitor operational enquiries. This could negate the need
to amend the constitution. The issue of operational questions
at Council would be reviewed in six months time, once the Portal
was in place
An operational question should only reach Full
Council if the proper process had been followed without
success. It should be a last resort because the task of
preparing responses to questions asked at full Council meetings was
resource intensive and involved senior council
officers.
The opportunity to ask a supplemental question
should not be used as a chance to make a political statement, it
should be used solely to ask a question arising from the response
to the question.
The Leader and Cabinet Members were available to
help all Members regardless of political party. Members were
encouraged to get in touch if there was an operational matter that
a Cabinet Member could help with.
It was proposed by
Councillor Hopkinson, seconded by Councillor Rusiecki and agreed that the Working Party
recommend the following amendments are considered by the Standards
Committee:
‘Council Procedure Rule
14.6
There would be no restriction on questions relating
to straight forward operational matters at this time. This
would be reviewed in six months, following the implementation of
the Members Portal.
That the bullet point ‘- related to a
matter which has already been raised as a Standards Complaint
against a member and which has not yet been concluded through the
Code of Conduct procedures.’ be added to the list of
reasons that would invalidate a question.
Council Procedure Rule
14.8
·That the following sentence be added at the end of
the existing paragraph: ‘The question must be a question
and not a statement, and rise directly out of the
response.’